Posted by
hector77 on
Jun 24, 2018; 11:19am
URL: http://foro-crashoil.109.s1.nabble.com/El-hombre-seria-responsable-de-solo-0-2-C-de-calentamiento-tp45560p45831.html
CRITICAS AL MODELO NEGACIONISTA DE ABBOT Y MAROHASY
Coverage by the Guardian's Graham Readfearn noted that none of the conservative media reports had sought views of the research amongst members of the scientific community. When Readfearn did so, he received severe criticisms of the work and its methods, and declarations that it was "junk science" (by David Karoly) and that the publication should be withdrawn.[6] Methodological issues with the research and criticisms made included:
Unexplained and selective use of proxy temperature records – only six were used and no reason was given for their choice,[6] when a recent paper showed that there are at least 692 available. Their approach was criticised as "extremely unscientific" by Benjamin Henley of the University of Melbourne for making no attempt to compare their approach with actual temperature data. With results that are interpreted incorrectly and which do not support the conclusions, Henley stated that the paper should never have been published and should be withdrawn by the journal.[6] Henley made harsher comments directly to Marohasy on Twitter, describing the paper as "an absolute pile of rubbish" that "reads like a D-grade high school lab report and is utterly flawed."
Gavin Schmidt, the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, described that paper as an example of "what happens when people have their conclusions fixed before they start the work" and assessed it as "worthless." He identified an internal contradiction in their method, whereby equilibrium climate sensitivity was assumed to be solely due to natural internal variations (and thus excluding external factors including volcanic action and solar variations) despite this contradicting claims elsewhere in the paper. Schmidt also found that "something went wrong" in the digitisation of the results resulting in a temporal offset. Consequently, in the Northern Hemisphere data, "what they think is 2000, is actually 1965" and so at least 35 years of recent warming has been omitted.[6] Schmidt put his criticisms direct to Marohasy on Twitter, seeking her comments on his statement that her "conclusions are based on inaccurately cited data that's incorrectly scaled and incorrectly aligned in time."[31] Marohasy rejected Schmidt's claims as "false"[32] and declared that Schmidt was wrong[31][33] when he suggested[34] that they had used a smoothed version of the Moberg at al. (2005)[35] data set.
Piers Forster, the Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, criticised the "unphysical" approach taken in using extrapolation where measured data are available. For example, patterns of volcanic activity prior to 1880 have been extrapolated forward despite the actual pattern of volcanism in the previous 150 years being both well-known and significantly different from the period pre 1880.[6]
Author John Abbot was also criticised for claiming an affiliation to James Cook University, despite the manuscript being submitted well after his adjunct position ended.
Articulo en The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-scienceVamos, que el articulo de 2017 es de una dupla de gente que utiliza un modelo sesgado y con muy pocas variables (solo seis entre 692 validas ).